Date   

moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

Oh, one more thing: What happens if someone pays expecting to get into a particular group, then can't get in for whatever reason (not approved), and gets mad?

JohnF


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

I like the concept of paid users conserving the number of free (or group-paid) slots for other users who can afford it. However, here are some other things that need to be thought about:

Easy: Any group requiring approval for new members needs an indicator that an incoming member is paid, so they know approval won't cost anything.

More difficult: What happens if someone stops paying? There are multiple complications with this. You'd think for a free group, if there are enough free slots available, they can stay, otherwise remove them automatically. But what if the newly non-paying member is an owner? What if they're the group's only owner? Maybe that situation is rare enough that it'd be OK for groups.io support to clean up any resulting mess if the non-payment was accidental. For premium groups, there may need to be an option for this: Start paying for the user (if they're over the limit), or kick them out?

I don't think there needs to be a free trial period as long as groups like beta and GMF exist and allow unlimited free members. If someone wants to join a group that will require a fee but isn't sure they like groups.io, they can be directed to one or more of these to get the hang of what groups are like. Alternatively, you could allow a one-time refund if a user is dissatisfied within 5 days.

You may have someone wanting a "family plan" where several household members could be paid from one account, but that wouldn't have to be available right away.

Once again, just because I come up with issues doesn't mean I don't think it's a good idea. :-)

JohnF


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

txercoupemuseum.org
 

I think Samuel’s idea is flexible enough to explore as to practicality.

Instead of focusing on the 100 person “limit”, how a 100 “active participant” limit instead. Most email-based groups have the great majority of their “subscribers” as functional “lurkers”. If a subscriber posted less than 3-5 times annually, that, to me, is an “inactive participant. Yes, these get all the “redistributed” emails from “active participants, but their presence does not substantially increase that traffic.

It is common for software companies to offer a “free trial” period. On Groups.io, I suggest one appropriate for persons who want to set up a group. As for their subscribers, they would have a choice of “inactive participant” (who “settles for the give and take of others") or "active participant”, free to participate without limitation (for a fee)?

These parameters may be “tricky” to sound out and properly define so as to be practical, but that’s a “one-time deal”…not an ongoing administrative burden (once defined and agreed). I think the concept has infinite potential in the context in which it has arisen.

In particular, I wish to thank Mark for his open mind on this pivotal subject; all too many in his position have a terminal “not invented here” ego problem. No complex proposal is “reasonably workable” until properly investigated and fully defined.

Best,

WRB

On Jan 7, 2021, at 5:02 PM, J_Catlady <j.olivia.catlady@gmail.com> wrote:

I sort of liked Samuel's idea when I first saw it, but I see problems with it. All of the below pertain to when the group has reached 100:

-Is the group owner supposed, or is groups.io going, to maintain a wait list?
-What about restricted groups with a questionnaire - are people requesting admission supposed to complete the questionnaire knowing they won't be admitted immediately, or perhaps not even knowing at first?
-Is the 14-day pending member limit (before deletion) going to be removed?
-In general, how and at what point, would or should requesting members be notified that the group is temporarily full?
-How, and this is not a technical issue, but how are group owners supposed to figure out whom to remove (and how to inform them) if and when a "more desirable" person requests admission?
-"Try before you buy" also sounds very tricky. How many people will be allowed in on that basis? How would it be kept track of (in case someone tries to repeatedly try), and other issues...

And that's just off the top of my head. When I saw the proposal I liked it at first. But I'm not so sure it's reasonably workable.

--
J


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Andy Wedge
 

Hi Mark,

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 10:11 PM, Mark Fletcher wrote:

I am concerned about how to explain and present it clearly. I also think getting the implementation right would be tricky.

It's a complex arrangement and as well as you try to explain it, I think there will be lots of people that just don;t get it.

  • In Samuel's proposal, there's potentially a lot of member management that has to be done by the owners
One of Samuel's opening comments in his message was that your current proposal puts the onus on group owners to manage membership fees.  I think with his proposed solution group owners will spend even more time trying to manage group subscriptions and determine whether members are active or not so they can potentially remove them and free up so called 'free slots' (and there have been recent topics either here or on GMF asking about tools to determine active users - no easy solution exists).

If 'free slots' are not released by cleaning out redundant subscribers then pretty much anyone else joining Groups.io will end up paying and I'm sure that will increase the financial admin somewhat.  There''s already a simple mechanism in place for taking payments per group so I'd say use that, charge a nominal fee for basic groups which will mean they're not being subsidised (as much) by Premium and Enterprise groups. it's simple, almost certainly less coding and certainly easy to explain.

Regards
Andy



  • and I wonder if we reduce/simplify that? Ideally this is something owners would not have to think about.
  • What else am I missing?

Thanks,
Mark


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

p.s. Re the waitlist, some sort of waitlist would seem necessary to prevent people from having to apply over and over again or just give up.
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

I sort of liked Samuel's idea when I first saw it, but I see problems with it. All of the below pertain to when the group has reached 100:

-Is the group owner supposed, or is groups.io going, to maintain a wait list?
-What about restricted groups with a questionnaire - are people requesting admission supposed to complete the questionnaire knowing they won't be admitted immediately, or perhaps not even knowing at first?
-Is the 14-day pending member limit (before deletion) going to be removed?
-In general, how and at what point, would or should requesting members be notified that the group is temporarily full?
-How, and this is not a technical issue, but how are group owners supposed to figure out whom to remove (and how to inform them) if and when a "more desirable" person requests admission?
-"Try before you buy" also sounds very tricky. How many people will be allowed in on that basis? How would it be kept track of (in case someone tries to repeatedly try), and other issues...

And that's just off the top of my head. When I saw the proposal I liked it at first. But I'm not so sure it's reasonably workable.

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 2:16 PM Robert Kingett <kingettr@...> wrote:

Quite honestly, if this were to happen, I'd have to leave groups IO completely. All of my followers are low income and if they have to pay just to recieve email updates from me, they will leave. I'll have to leave too. I'm more than willing to pay for premium features, but I can't justify this idea at all.


Please read the original proposal and also understand, as previously stated, that existing groups would be considered legacy and not subject to per-member charges.


Mark 


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

Glenn Glazer
 

On 01/07/2021 14:16, Robert Kingett wrote:
Quite honestly, if this were to happen, I'd have to leave groups IO completely. All of my followers are low income and if they have to pay just to recieve email updates from me, they will leave. I'll have to leave too. I'm more than willing to pay for premium features, but I can't justify this idea at all.

What if existing groups were grandfathered?

Best,

Glenn

--
PG&E Delenda Est


moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

Quite honestly, if this were to happen, I'd have to leave groups IO completely. All of my followers are low income and if they have to pay just to recieve email updates from me, they will leave. I'll have to leave too. I'm more than willing to pay for premium features, but I can't justify this idea at all.


moderated Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion

 

Hi All,

Thank you all for the vigorous but respectful discussion on the planned pricing changes. I'd like to discuss Samuel's proposal for paid users, as outlined here: https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/27515. I'm less interested in specific details, and more about the overall concept, which if I can summarize, is:

  • Groups have a set number of "free member slots". Someone filling one of these slots does not have to pay anything to Groups.io.
  • Paid groups would have more "free member slots".
  • Once the free member slots are filled up, someone wishing to be a new member of the group would have to pay a yearly fee to Groups.io.

There are other aspects, but that's the general outline. One could also imagine that paying the yearly fee to Groups.io would unlock additional per-user features at some point (like the ability to star/save messages, or the ability to delay the sending of a message to a group for a few minutes in case you want to change it, for example).

I think it's an interesting idea, although I am concerned about how to explain and present it clearly. I also think getting the implementation right would be tricky. Questions for the group:

  • Are there any problems with this idea/reasons to not implement it?
  • Does there need to be a try before you buy period where someone could subscribe to a group for 14 days (let's say) before having to become a paid member?
  • In Samuel's proposal, there's potentially a lot of member management that has to be done by the owners and I wonder if we reduce/simplify that? Ideally this is something owners would not have to think about.
  • What else am I missing?

Thanks,
Mark


Re: better member list filtering #suggestion

Bruce Bowman
 

On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 01:43 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
I'm all in favor of filters for the list (and every list), I think it is long overdue:
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/6205230#14955

But not necessarily in the Members/Moderators/Pending Approval/Bouncing/Banned selector button (but then, I'm not all that fond of that button either).
Agreed. Although it's actually a pull-down menu, it looks like a button, and thus confuses a lot of newbie group owners.

I'd prefer a Status badge pick-list for the filter, similar to the Action pick-list currently found for the Activity log. Such a transition might be less than seamless, though.

Regards,
Bruce


moderated Re: Simplified Donation feature #suggestion

Janice
 

Shal,
I like your sponsorship suggestion.  I would like to suggest that groups.io automatically generate some kind of generic acknowledgement to the sponsor/donor maybe in the form of a thank you email. 

Janice B
New Statler Siblings
Long Arm Quilters


Re: better member list filtering #suggestion

 

k,

It would be best if all of the attributes (badges?) shown on the
member list are available in the drop-down filter.
I'm all in favor of filters for the list (and every list), I think it is long overdue:
https://beta.groups.io/g/main/topic/6205230#14955

But not necessarily in the Members/Moderators/Pending Approval/Bouncing/Banned selector button (but then, I'm not all that fond of that button either).

It would be best if all of the attributes (badges?) shown on the
member list are available in the drop-down filter. I don't see why
SOME would have been implemented without ALL being implemented. Not
logical.
I'm sure there's an implementation logic to it, if nothing more than ease, but I agree that we should be able to filter on any of the badges and other attributes of a member's subscription.

Shal


moderated Re: Simplified Donation feature #suggestion

 

Samuel,

I did not see this post of yours, Shal, when I posted my similar
suggestion:
Not a problem.

I like the word "Sponsor" for this function versus "Donations", and I'm both endorsing and stealing it!

So, where I said that from the member's viewpoint there would be no significant difference with the existing mechanism, I now add the exception that the page would have the label "Sponsor" and whatever wording tweaks to be consistent with that.

Shal


Re: better member list filtering #suggestion

Andy Wedge
 

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 10:14 PM, Bob Bellizzi wrote:
You can also save the file as a .txt file.
Yes, and that involves a few more steps and more keying so I went for the shorter route.

Cheers
Andy


Re: better member list filtering #suggestion

Bob Bellizzi
 

Andy,
You can also save the file as a .txt file.
Then open it usually as a comna delimited text file to save the text to columns folderol
--

Bob Bellizzi


moderated Re: Sponsor button on group home page #suggestion

 

I like this idea. Let's see what others, and Mark, say.


moderated Re: Simplified Donation feature #suggestion

Samuel Murrayy
 

On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 09:13 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
I thought I'd break this out as a separate Suggestion, since it is
actually separate from the Pricing Changes topic.

I did not see this post of yours, Shal, when I posted my similar suggestion:

https://beta.groups.io/g/main/message/27638 

Samuel


moderated Sponsor button on group home page #suggestion

Samuel Murrayy
 

Hello Mark

May I suggest a[nother] way for groups to get money for premium services?  I suggest that owners be given the option to have a "Sponsor our group" button on the group's home page.  This is basically a donate button, but the donations go directly to Groups.io (i.e. to you).

The system keeps track of the amount of money that was donated via each group.  At the end of a billing cycle, the group owner then has the option of combining his payment with some or all of the sponsored money, to buy another year of premium service.

So, for example, if a group managed to get $300 in sponsorship but they need only $220 for next year's premium membership, the owner then uses $220 of that $300, which reduces the available sponsorship to $80.  Or, if a group managed to get $100 in sponsorship but needs $220 for next year's premium membership, the group owner can pay $120 out of his own pocket, add the $100's credits, and the group's sponsorship counter goes back to zero.  Or, if a group did get $300 in sponsorship, but the owner decides to pay $170 of the $220 out of his own pocket anyway, the group's sponsorship counter drops to $200.

Sponsored money goes to Groups.io directly and it can't be "withdrawn" by the group owner.  If a group is shut down and they have sponsorship left over, they lose the money (or: perhaps the owner can select from a list of 5 or 10 charities, who then get a donation from Groups.io for that amount).  If a group drops from premium to basic (i.e. they no longer need the sponsorship money), the credits remain in the group's "account" and is not lost (in case the group later decides to go premium again), but the money can't be withdrawn.

The home page can also (at the owner's option) show how much money has been donated (sorry: sponsored) so far, and/or show a target (set by the owner) plus how close the group is to reaching the target.  The system need not keep track of *who* donated -- in fact, any member of the public can use the sponsorship button.  The group owner is not informed of who donated money -- only that sponsorship was received, and the owner can see the amount in his control panel (and if the owner chose to make this information visible on the group's home page, then members of the public can also see how much has been sponsored so far).

If it's not too hard to implement, it would be nice if group owners could donate their credits to other groups.
And if it's not too hard to implement, you can consider allowing sponsors to enter their e-mail address when donating, and letting the group owner know not just the amount but also the identity of the sponsor.

Samuel


Re: better member list filtering #suggestion

Andy Wedge
 

On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 04:51 AM, KWKloeber wrote:
It would be best if all of the attributes (badges?) shown on the member list are available in the drop-down filter. 
I agree additional filtering options would be useful at times and until that is implemented a simple workaround is:

  • On your member list, click the Download button
  • Select all text on the displayed list and copy to your clipboard
  • Paste that text into a new Excel worksheet
  • Use the 'Text to columns' feature (normally found on the Data tab) to split the text into columns (delimited by a command and using " as the text delimiter)
  • Filter the columns in Excel

The advantage of Excel filtering is that you can combine multiple filters and if you put your data into an Excel table then you can use all the whizzy stuff like pivot tables and slicers.

Andy

2241 - 2260 of 29648